Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave Search launches own image and video search

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#161

Post by tympious »

ric2b wrote: post #156
waithuh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heavily disagree. I own the server, thus the website. I should be able to allow or disallow any type of web crawler/scraper i want. Similar to how you cant easily regulate whats in a website without lawsuits and takedowns, you cant regulate how discoverable a website is.

> I should be able to allow or disallow any type of web crawler/scraper i want. You're certainly allowed to try, but I don't see why indexers should be mandated to collaborate with you. They serve their users, not you.

Will their users appreciate that they disregard the intent of the authors of what they index?

I mean, "allow" or "regulate" don't _really_ apply here - there was never any enforcement regime around robots.txt, just a convention based on the general expectation that you don't claim ownership of whatever passes your line of sight.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#162

Post by memefrog »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #157
memefrog wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreements about the meaning of the English word "marriage" arent even political disagreements. No more so than any other disagreements about what words mean. Disagreeing that marriage can, by definition, include homosexual relationships isnt "treatment" of anyone. You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be…

> You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be actively and deliberately manipulated". You do if the word has a legal definition and you refuse the benefits tied to that legal definition. Eich is free to call it whatever he wants as long as people get the benefits of marriage, something he paid to stop from happ…

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is something only marriage has been proven to be able to do.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#163

Post by inferiorhuman »

memefrog wrote: post #162
lern_too_spel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be actively and deliberately manipulated". You do if the word has a legal definition and you refuse the benefits tied to that legal definition. Eich is free to call it whatever he wants as long as people get the benefits of marriage, something he paid to stop from happ…

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is someth…

  There is no "legal definition".
Credit where credit is due, I'm impressed by your mental gymnastics. There is a legal definition (no scare quotes needed) of marriage, and that legal definition is precisely what Eich was trying to change.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#164

Post by BrendanEich »

gettodachoppa wrote: post #130

I like Brave and trust Brendan Eich, but what happens when they cash out and the next owners decide to monetize all this data? The current policies don't allow it, sure. But then there will be gradual changes to those policies, and all sorts of dark patterns that make 99% of users leak their data (think "enabled by default but opt-out"). Is there any guarantee against this?

We don't collect any data, so there's nothing to "monetize". We bring ad matching and blind confirmations to the browser, no need for collection.

You have to realize data is worth less over time -- a lot less. So the issue would be whether users stick if (heaven forbid) a change of control left Brave in the hands of unethical owners. By design, open source, network sniffing, and other auditors would catch wise and flame such a corrupt Brave into the ground. That's the best we can do here. There is no safety property ("X" holds for all future program states) enforceable on a company.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#165

Post by ignitionmonkey »

waithuh wrote: post #147
ignitionmonkey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Much like Firefox, I think it's important to use a search index that isn't tied to the larger players (Bing and Google in this case). I tried Brave a couple of months ago[1], I found the results better than Bing, but without image search it wasn't usable. Now I can give it another go. [1]: https://jahed.dev/2023/07/01/trying-brave-search/

Out of curiosity, if you dont want to be 'tied to the larger players', why not use metasearch engines like SearX? If Google does not have a great answer, Bing does, or Mojeek.

I'm referring to a default search engine. Something I can use by default everywhere and I can recommend to others. So it has to provide results based on typical use cases.

First I've heard of a "metasearch" engine. I just tried SearX and it gave me no results for my projects and only a couple for "Mastodon", but the animal not the software.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#166

Post by lern_too_spel »

memefrog wrote: post #162
lern_too_spel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You dont treat someone differently by saying "I think you should be able to have a legally recognised relationship but I refuse to allow language to be actively and deliberately manipulated". You do if the word has a legal definition and you refuse the benefits tied to that legal definition. Eich is free to call it whatever he wants as long as people get the benefits of marriage, something he paid to stop from happ…

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is someth…

So just to be clear, you agree that you're treating people differently now? You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Just like Judge Douglas and Eich.

As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#167

Post by memefrog »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #166
memefrog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is someth…

So just to be clear, you agree that you're treating people differently now? You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Just like Judge Douglas and Eich. As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

Everyone is different. Thus everyone is treated differently.

> You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions.

Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views. Guess what: almost everyone in the world disagrees with you. And it isnt on religious grounds.

> As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

So you are making an argument that one group of people are allowed to unilaterally pass laws that redefine common terms, but you say that anyone trying to undo that illogical change is "trying to change the definition"?

Do you not see how hypocritical that is?

Also FYI, insulting people doesn't make your argument look stronger. It just makes you look very desperate. I know that American leftists almost never have to justify their views to anyone and have no practice defending them, but try a little harder.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#168

Post by memefrog »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #163
memefrog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "legal definition". There is just the definition. The legal benefits are tied to marriage because of what marriage is, not because of its name. If you want the legal benefits extended to you, then make that the law. But the benefits are restricted to marriage because marriage is a particular institution with a particular social purpose: producing the next generation in a stable environment. That is someth…

There is no "legal definition". Credit where credit is due, I'm impressed by your mental gymnastics. There is a legal definition (no scare quotes needed) of marriage, and that legal definition is precisely what Eich was trying to change.

I just explained why that is not true. Repeatedly asserting the truth of disproven allegations makes you just look desperate.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#169

Post by lern_too_spel »

memefrog wrote: post #167
lern_too_spel wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just to be clear, you agree that you're treating people differently now? You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Just like Judge Douglas and Eich. As far as making that the law, that's exactly what happened. Eich and his fellow ethically-challenged smallbrains then changed the constitution so that the law no longer applied.

Everyone is different. Thus everyone is treated differently. > You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views. Guess what: almost everyone in the world disagrees with you. And it isnt on religious grounds. > As far as making that the law, that's exactly wha…

> Thus everyone is treated differently.

Thank you, Judge Douglas.

> Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views.

Because you're using your superstitions to tell other people what to do. Guess what? Everybody with at least half a post-enlightenment brain disagrees with you.

> So you are making an argument that one group of people are allowed to unilaterally pass laws that redefine common terms

No, my argument from the start has been that one group is wrong to do so, just like Lincoln said that one group is wrong to make laws allowing slavery to expand. This type of consistent thinking is difficult for superstitious people to follow, but with practice, it will come more easily.

> Also FYI, insulting people doesn't make your argument look stronger.

I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. If you don't like it, maybe Eich (and you) should stop being publicly wrong. For that matter, you should see the insults that Lincoln hurled at Douglas. A hint for you: your insults would land better if you were right.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#170

Post by memefrog »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #169
memefrog wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is different. Thus everyone is treated differently. > You just justify it by tortured logic based on your traditional superstitions. Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views. Guess what: almost everyone in the world disagrees with you. And it isnt on religious grounds. > As far as making that the law, that's exactly wha…

> Thus everyone is treated differently. Thank you, Judge Douglas. > Why are the American left so obsessed with religion? You seem to think it is the basis for all disagreement with your absurd views. Because you're using your superstitions to tell other people what to do. Guess what? Everybody with at least half a post-enlightenment brain disagrees with you. > So you are making an argument that one group of people ar…

>Thank you, Judge Douglas.

I have no fucking clue who this person is. Stop bringing him up. It is insanely cringe.

>Because you're using your superstitions to tell other people what to do. Guess what? Everybody with at least half a post-enlightenment brain disagrees with you.

I am not religious you moron. Stop making random assumptions. How many times does this need to be explained to you? Why are you fucking stupid American leftists incapable of understanding that people can disagree with you for GOOD reasons. You aren't automatically right about everything just because you're on the left and you were born in the USA. You're an absolute fucking dolt.

Post reply on HN